Donald junior's evolving story

black dog

Free America
Today in real news, Last night I had two smoked bbq porkchops with dinner, I just farted and the dog got up and left the room.
Money well spent.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Jr says he met with the Russian lawyer to get information to help the Trump campaign but was disappointed she didn't have anything meaningful......

Well, this story blasts a couple unreparable holes below the water line of the Trump Collusion with Russia fake news. If the Donald was colluding, he would have known the trash on Hillary and would have used it But it does suggest the Russians did not meddle with the 2016 election since they apparently didn't have any trash on Hillary.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
yeah..turns out she used that "dirt on Hillary" claim as bait to get the meeting set up, whereupon her real intent became known: Her real mission/vocation is opposing the Magnitsky Act..and has been for quite a few years.

Oh well.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Why is this news? It purports that they went to them to get dirt on Hillary and didn't find any.
What does this prove?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Times ‘exposé’ on Donald Trump Jr. is a big yawn



Having established the smear of “collusion,” the Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.

Hasn’t the Times learned its lesson from its disastrous Feb. 14 story, also anonymously sourced, about the Trump campaign’s “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence?” In his congressional testimony last month, former FBI director James Comey said: “In the main, it was not true.”

But then, so are the other “collusion” stories the left is trying to peddle as proof of some sinister plot to subvert democracy. And all because they refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. As the president might say: Sad!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron

Wishbone

New Member
NYT and WashPo - do they even have any sources?


tarotcards_01.jpg

CrystalBall2.jpg

hqdefault.jpg
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The Times ‘exposé’ on Donald Trump Jr. is a big yawn



Having established the smear of “collusion,” the Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.

Hasn’t the Times learned its lesson from its disastrous Feb. 14 story, also anonymously sourced, about the Trump campaign’s “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence?” In his congressional testimony last month, former FBI director James Comey said: “In the main, it was not true.”

But then, so are the other “collusion” stories the left is trying to peddle as proof of some sinister plot to subvert democracy. And all because they refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. As the president might say: Sad!

As long as the "Trump cheated!" story persists - and all the versions that will follow - as long as it never gains any traction, it can only serve to blind Democrats as to why their candidate lost last November. They refuse to believe they lost on rational, reasonable grounds. They continue the belief that they were robbed, that Hillary was superior and the only reason Trump won was that the country, after electing a black President twice, suddenly became unconscionably racist and vile and elected a tyrant.

I've had this conversation in various forms over the past MANY years - if you lose a game/an election/a job/a beauty contest - to a *turd* - that says more about YOU than about your opponent or god help you, the people calling the decisions. So - you can blame the judges/voters/refs/interviewers but - you lost.

When you lose a beauty contest to a turd, you NEED to check the mirror, not the ballots.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Why is this news? It purports that they went to them to get dirt on Hillary and didn't find any.
What does this prove?
maybe because he denied having met with the Russians, then said they only met to talk about adoption, then came out and admitted the purpose of the meeting was for the campaign to gain usable information from the Russians for use against his opponent in the election.
"Anonymous sources say...."

Clearly bull####. If it weren't, there would be names. NYT and WashPo - do they even have any sources? Every story it's some figment of their imagination telling them stuff.
are you calling DJT jr an unnamed source?

Jr. admitted that he and the campaign were baited by the possibility of working with the Russians.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
They've been using that line of #### since 2000.

And the response I had was - this was a SITTING Vice-President to an otherwise popular President
- it SHOULD have been a slam dunk. He SHOULD have been able to win *easily*. No razor-thin photo-finishes.
If you really bought into how superior Gore was to Bush - then why couldn't Gore even win HIS OWN HOME STATE?

You know, sometimes a football game comes down to a single field goal attempt - and if that guy misses, morons will blame HIM for the loss.
And I will say hey, they had a whole four quarters of football to beat the other team. You're going to blame the whole game on a few seconds?

This was a guy who had everything going for him. Well, except Bill Clinton. People simply didn't like the guy.
 
Top